In appeal against dismissal of a Section 163-A claim, the High Court held the deceased owner-driver was not a third party. However, paying premium for owner-driver cover limited liability to Rs. 1 lakh with interest.
Appeal partly allowed; compensation fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- with 6% interest; impugned award modified accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 108 of 2019
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Shaleen Jangde, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Azad Siddique, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
ORAL ORDER
08/05/2024
2
Due to the said accident, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death.
3
Rs.50/- was charged for compulsory P.A. cover (owner - driver). In the case of Ramkhiladi (supra), it was held as under -
“9.5. It is true that, in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is based on the principle of no-fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 , an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.”
4
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Deepti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether compensation is maintainable under Section 163-A when the deceased owner-driver suffered a one-vehicle accident due to his own negligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramkhiladi and another v. The United Insurance Co. Ltd. and anotherReferred¶20
(2020) 2 SCC 550 · Who else cites this
Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.Referred¶26
(2004) 8 SCC 553 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Basantin Bai W/o Late Murharam Dhruve and Anr.
The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
